Editorial Viewpoint
A new landmark
The litigants, interveners, lawyers and others crammed themselves into the ground floor chambers of Justice Dr S. Radhakrishnan. For almost four months the community had been anxiously awaiting the verdict of justices Radhakrishnan and Anoop V. Mohta on the fate of adult franchise for the election of Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustees. The question hinged on whether the four BPP trustees who resigned and subsequently withdrew their resignations continued to be trustees or not. Without the four trustees the remaining two would not constitute a quorum hence the proposal mooted for modifying the election scheme would be invalid.
“We are upholding the decision of the single judge,” said Radhakrishnan. There are “no effective resignations.” The single judge Roshan Dalvi had also nulled the trustee resignations.
Thus a year after Justice A. M. Khanwilkar first sanctioned the trustees’ proposals to introduce universal adult franchise, the concept became reality.
The divisional bench allowed two months for voters to be registered and three to four months thereafter for elections to be held. The judgment was announced following intervener Zeree Jehangirji approaching Radhakrishnan in his chambers and informing him that the functioning of the BPP was being severely hampered pending the election of new trustees. According to Jehangirji, Radhakrishnan offered his apologies to the community for the delay. Shortly thereafter the judgment was announced on April 30, 2008.
The World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) lawyer present in the chamber asked for a four-week stay on the election process to appeal the decision. Radhakrishnan denied the request and told him in no uncertain terms “put your energies for constructive use of the community.” For over a year the orthodox body’s founder trustees have attempted to thwart the introduction of adult franchise under one pretext or the other.
Having packed the newly sanctioned Anjuman Committee (AC) in 2007, WAPIZ was understandably eager to hold trusteeship elections under that archaic scheme. Under the AC procedure only around 3,500 Zoroastrians, one third of whom were donors, would be able to vote for the trustees of the BPP. But the cycle of change had already been set in motion by the BPP trustees.
Weakened by their internecine quarrelling and alternately bludgeoned by WAPIZ and the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA), the trustees opted for a compromise formula hammered out by noted lawyer, columnist, community activist and BPP trustee Dinshaw Mehta’s (onetime) ally, Berjis Desai.
Desai deftly brought the warring factions together, proposing the trustees approach the courts to approve trusteeship elections by adult franchise with all the six trustees resigning once new trustees are elected. The move was expected to find wide favor in a community that had been clamoring for the right to vote.
But before the proposal saw the light of day, an endless series of court cases were initiated by WAPIZ and AZA which respectively resulted in a delay in the elections and froze allocations of BPP property, namely flats.
Just prior to Radhakrishnan and Mohta’s momentous decision the BPP trustees and the AZA leadership had under the directions of the Charity Commissioner (CC) interviewed about 100 of the 950 or so housing applicants who approached the CC to state their case for being allotted flats.
The “process is working smoothly,” said BPP chairman Minoo Shroff when asked about the meetings. “A healthy development in the otherwise supercharged world of Parsi politics,” is how Desai described the turn of events in his Bombay Samachar “Parsi Tari Arsi” column of April 20, 2008.
AZA leader Kersi Randeria said the last two meetings with the applicants, trustees and the AZA representatives went “very well.” The meetings gave the trustees “a feel of the community,” said Randeria and also brought to light the “deficiencies of the merit rating system.”
Randeria notes the list of housing applicants which at one time was over 3,000 and is now around 950, will be further whittled down after careful scrutiny. With the BPP having around 200 flats to allocate, the Petit trust contemplating another 200 or so flats in the western suburbs, “things are beginning to look up for the community,” said Randeria. He believes by 2010 “AZA’s role will be over” as regards housing.
The question of whom to allocate the 100 BPP flats currently available remains, with Rustom Hormuzdiyar who served on the BPP’s housing committee believing that half may be allocated to the 100 CC applicants while the remaining be reserved for others on the waiting list. But AZA’s Percy Patel is of the opinion that those who had the courage to come forth should be rewarded.
While these issues may continue to vex the decision makers, the focus will now shift to the forthcoming elections. Pent up frustration will now give way to hectic electioneering.
As a long and tedious story is nearing denouement a new chapter is opening. The common, everyday Bombay Parsi/Irani finally will have a say in the affairs of his/her community. A right given to nearly all Zoroastrians in India and abroad has come late in the day to this bastion of the community.
The saga has many heroes who shaped its destiny. But not the least of them are the lawyers, who ably argued the issues, and the judges who delivered just decisions. After the landmark Petit vs Jeejeebhoy case of 1908 and Saklat vs Bella of 1925, this must rank as the third most important judicial proceedings in the community.
“We are upholding the decision of the single judge,” said Radhakrishnan. There are “no effective resignations.” The single judge Roshan Dalvi had also nulled the trustee resignations.
Thus a year after Justice A. M. Khanwilkar first sanctioned the trustees’ proposals to introduce universal adult franchise, the concept became reality.
The divisional bench allowed two months for voters to be registered and three to four months thereafter for elections to be held. The judgment was announced following intervener Zeree Jehangirji approaching Radhakrishnan in his chambers and informing him that the functioning of the BPP was being severely hampered pending the election of new trustees. According to Jehangirji, Radhakrishnan offered his apologies to the community for the delay. Shortly thereafter the judgment was announced on April 30, 2008.
The World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) lawyer present in the chamber asked for a four-week stay on the election process to appeal the decision. Radhakrishnan denied the request and told him in no uncertain terms “put your energies for constructive use of the community.” For over a year the orthodox body’s founder trustees have attempted to thwart the introduction of adult franchise under one pretext or the other.
Having packed the newly sanctioned Anjuman Committee (AC) in 2007, WAPIZ was understandably eager to hold trusteeship elections under that archaic scheme. Under the AC procedure only around 3,500 Zoroastrians, one third of whom were donors, would be able to vote for the trustees of the BPP. But the cycle of change had already been set in motion by the BPP trustees.
Weakened by their internecine quarrelling and alternately bludgeoned by WAPIZ and the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA), the trustees opted for a compromise formula hammered out by noted lawyer, columnist, community activist and BPP trustee Dinshaw Mehta’s (onetime) ally, Berjis Desai.
Desai deftly brought the warring factions together, proposing the trustees approach the courts to approve trusteeship elections by adult franchise with all the six trustees resigning once new trustees are elected. The move was expected to find wide favor in a community that had been clamoring for the right to vote.
But before the proposal saw the light of day, an endless series of court cases were initiated by WAPIZ and AZA which respectively resulted in a delay in the elections and froze allocations of BPP property, namely flats.
Just prior to Radhakrishnan and Mohta’s momentous decision the BPP trustees and the AZA leadership had under the directions of the Charity Commissioner (CC) interviewed about 100 of the 950 or so housing applicants who approached the CC to state their case for being allotted flats.
The “process is working smoothly,” said BPP chairman Minoo Shroff when asked about the meetings. “A healthy development in the otherwise supercharged world of Parsi politics,” is how Desai described the turn of events in his Bombay Samachar “Parsi Tari Arsi” column of April 20, 2008.
AZA leader Kersi Randeria said the last two meetings with the applicants, trustees and the AZA representatives went “very well.” The meetings gave the trustees “a feel of the community,” said Randeria and also brought to light the “deficiencies of the merit rating system.”
Randeria notes the list of housing applicants which at one time was over 3,000 and is now around 950, will be further whittled down after careful scrutiny. With the BPP having around 200 flats to allocate, the Petit trust contemplating another 200 or so flats in the western suburbs, “things are beginning to look up for the community,” said Randeria. He believes by 2010 “AZA’s role will be over” as regards housing.
The question of whom to allocate the 100 BPP flats currently available remains, with Rustom Hormuzdiyar who served on the BPP’s housing committee believing that half may be allocated to the 100 CC applicants while the remaining be reserved for others on the waiting list. But AZA’s Percy Patel is of the opinion that those who had the courage to come forth should be rewarded.
While these issues may continue to vex the decision makers, the focus will now shift to the forthcoming elections. Pent up frustration will now give way to hectic electioneering.
As a long and tedious story is nearing denouement a new chapter is opening. The common, everyday Bombay Parsi/Irani finally will have a say in the affairs of his/her community. A right given to nearly all Zoroastrians in India and abroad has come late in the day to this bastion of the community.
The saga has many heroes who shaped its destiny. But not the least of them are the lawyers, who ably argued the issues, and the judges who delivered just decisions. After the landmark Petit vs Jeejeebhoy case of 1908 and Saklat vs Bella of 1925, this must rank as the third most important judicial proceedings in the community.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive